…events over the past ten years have revealed a marked change in the types of threats to be expected from a Palestinian state, if such a state comes into being, or from the existing Palestinian entity. This involves a switch to three types of weaponry that create problems that are very difficult to handle:

Rockets and missiles of different varieties, positioned throughout the West Bank, would be easily able to cover the entire area of the State of Israel.

Advanced anti-aircraft missiles would be capable of shooting down not only large passenger aircraft flying into Ben-Gurion International Airport, but also helicopters and even fighter planes.

Anti-tank missiles that are highly effective up to a range of 5 km. can easily cover not only strategic positions such as Israel’s north-south Highway 6, but well beyond, including other sites that are crucial to Israel’s defense.

The common denominator among all three types of weaponry is that they all fundamentally contradict the guidelines discussed for security arrangements in any agreement with the Palestinians. The Necessity of Controlling the Territory

Ten years ago it was said that the answer to coping with the Palestinian threat to Israel was a demilitarized Palestinian state. But what does this mean? If such a state is stripped of tanks, artillery, and aircraft, it is probable that a detailed agreement to that effect will be signed and a monitoring system will be instituted to oversee its enforcement.

However [today], the real threat comes not from tanks but from rockets, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-tank missiles. The common denominator among all of these is the ease of smuggling and clandestine manufacture, as is taking place today in Gaza. No monitoring system that may be established will be able to prevent this.

For instance, in a convoy of tens or even hundreds of trucks carrying crates of agricultural produce, there is nothing to prevent missiles from being concealed. Nor would there be any problem in storing such weapons in houses and cellars in built-up neighborhoods of Tulkarm, Kalkilya, or Nablus in the West Bank, nor any way of knowing of their existence until they are used against Israel. The threat that these weapons pose to Israel is much more significant than that of tanks or airplanes. On the contrary, there are various excellent means of combating tanks and artillery, but no effective way of combating smuggling or the local production of missiles. That being so, the term “demilitarized state” is an almost meaningless concept, if not accompanied by a monitoring system. It is well known that even in the best possible scenario, the existing systems are able to monitor only standard military weapons. The only way to monitor the prevention of smuggling of such types of weapons into the West Bank, or prevent their manufacture within it, is control…

If Israel were to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, then the area to the east of the Israel-Palestine border would be home not only to the Palestinian Authority, but to other potential enemies too, since an agreement with the Palestinians provides no guarantee of an agreement with Hizbullah or peace with Syria. The question of whether Israel is able to defend itself is relevant not only in relation to the Palestinians, but should also be examined in the not unreasonable scenario of a war with Syria, Hizbullah, and the Palestinians.

Until the definition of the Palestinian Cause (see my previous post) changes radically, the only guarantee of security is the practical ability to prevent or repel an attack.

Discussions about the ‘peace process’ seem to revolve mostly about what the Arabs will get. What will the borders be? How much of Jerusalem will Israel give up? Lately, to a much smaller extent, there is talk about an Israeli demand for recognition. But the questions raised by Eiland are much more fundamental.

Maybe we should stop worrying so much about the political issues and more about the physical security of Israel.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 26th, 2010 at 4:26 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.Both comments and pings are currently closed.

The two postulates established rule out the so-called two state solution. Implementing it is a prescription for Israel to commit national suicide.

Whoever denies this denies the truth that without Israeli sovereignty over Yesha, any security arrangements of other types will be worthless. What matters is not what the Arabs may get in the future but how to safeguard the homeland of the Jewish people for posterity. The only trustworthy guardian of that security is the Jewish State itself.

There are other reasons for believing the creation of a Palestinian Arab state will constitute an existensial threat to Israel. One major one is the demographic flooding which would most likely come as result of a porous border. If millions of even hundreds of thousands of Arabs ‘return’ to Palestine then many of them will make their way into Israel. However I do not see any real answer to those who say the status quo is also undermining our security and well- being.

The answer starts with delegitimizing the PA as the representatives of Palestinian national aspirations. As long as the PA exists – or at least until they radically alter their national charter so as to recognize Israel as the home of the Jewish people, which they’ll never do – then there isn’t going to be any peace, period.

I don’t think this is as an impossible task as it sounds. The PA and their buddies have been doggedly pursuing the delegtimization of Israel for decades…and this effort I recommend will also not be effective overnight.

But it needs to happen. And there are sympathetic people out there.

You might have heard of that guy in Ohio who was running for congress who did a WW2 re-enactment as a Nazi SS trooper…Well, I’ve got news for you all if you heard of that, because I can tell you for an absolute fact that he’s as pro-Israel as the day is long. Also, the clown he’s running against is one of the most anti-Israel members of Congress. I KNOW – I have VERIFIED – that he’d agree 100% with the statement I made above.

He is heavily supported by the “Tea Party” types. They are growing and they are on our side.

But bottom line: The PA MUST GO.

That is the “silver lining” I see in the very dark clouds right on the horizon. I see a fight breaking out with the PA, as they start a war in the expectation that Obama will back them against Israel. This will be the opportunity to flatten them once and for all. No U.S. “leash” this time…NOTHING TO LOSE IN THE WAY OF U.S. SUPPORT, AS YOU REALLY DON’T HAVE IT UNDER OBAMA ANYWAY!

It means a couple of horrendous years as a pariah state, but at the other end of that – when something resembling sanity returns to U.S. foreign policy – you don’t have to deal with the PA anymore. Then, it is only Jordan. THEY are the Palestinian state (the fellow running for Congress referenced above completely agrees with that, too).